IMO you'd have to be mental to try and get into an accident with a car intentionally, because, you know, you might die.
Indeed, I cannot see people intentionally chucking themselves in front of cars to get compensation. There is enough legal framework in place for this to happen already, you could amass your dodgy witnesses and carry this out right now regardless of a change in the law.
Like others here I ride a bike on the road, a motorcycle and drive a car.
Don't feel like I am entering death race 2000 every time I go out on the road. In general the level of driving is pretty good in this country.
To get much safer would mean either not riding bikes on the road or not driving cars on the road.
As people have eluded to, there are other things that kill more people that we should concentrate on first.
Its really not that bad in the real world people 
FTFY
No, nice try but that's not right.
A road is a place where you expect cars; it's where cars are supposed to be. It's disingenuous to compare that directly to "the woods"; I wouldn't expect a nutcase with a gun to be shooting in any old woods, but I would expect them on a shooting range. If I got shot in the woods it'd (probably) be the shooter's fault of course, the same as if I got run over whilst walking on the pavement.
Ta toys / lifer.
I do find it quite incredible that on a supposed cyclist forum any attempt to rebalance the usage of roads from car drivers towards pedestrians and cyclists gets jumped on so hard by some.
If this is the reaction from a group I would assume to be pro cycle then its hardly uprising that the general attitude on the roads in the UK is so anti cycle.
Presumed liability and 20 mph urban limits would improve the lot of the cyclist greatly without disproportionate burdens on the car driver
Woofnerf as used in the Netherlands and other places is a fantastic scheme - the area looks better without all the signage and people are safer
Straight numbers of death can be very missleading. Take a listen to the podcast I linked to on page two, for some explainsion of this.
can't get audio here at work
All sorts of figures often aren't as clear as the headline numbers suggest but that wasn't the nub of my post
I was making the point that I don't feel in any particular danger on the roads, whatever vehicle I'm using
bazzerTo get much safer would mean either not riding bikes on the road or not driving cars on the road
Nope - adopting the empty streets would reduce casualties dramatically as would assumed liability
INRATS
however, IMO:
Anyone (both drivers) involved in a crash/claim has a mandatory retest, at their expense or that of party at fault
Coppers do frequent sweeps of randomly selected petrol stations to check insurance, MOT etc and have power of seizure and "disposal" of uninsured cars
redesigning roads - great, but no money for that in the forseeable future
Sadly, I think the only thing that will reduce accidents is to go back in time a couple of generations to ensure society doesn't turn into the the blubbering selfish mass with no common-sense that it has done.
Although, maybe the driving theory test should incorporate the stuff you have do go through on a speed awareness course. I got done for 37mph on an empty road, did the course and now NEVER speed, (except on motorways when its clear). but that will only help new drivers, who then see old drivers with their bad habits, so maybe everyone should have to undergo a retest to be allowed to continue driving, to sort of reset the clock. i can see that happening....
So if they trip and fall into a machine that is not guarded that is not their fault, ... I feel the same about road users,
I agree, to a point. However, I still think that safety is the responsibility of everyone. You can't simply go "oh, it's the driver's fault" irrespective of the behaviour of all the halfwits on foot / pedal.
Machines have guards, roads have crossings, signals. If someone removes the guard and shoves their hands into a bandsaw, is it still the saw operator's fault? In a car, I expect everyone else to be careful, but that doesn't mean I'm not being. It's not one-sided.
Nope - adopting the empty streets would reduce casualties dramatically as would assumed liability
At what cost though ? and I don't mean just financially.
2009 there were 109 cyclists killed when I did a quick search. Lets say a 20% of them did something stupid leaving 82 ish people being killed due to the fault of the driver.
Is it really worth tackling this when there are other things which kill far more people ?
Its a tiny problem !!!
I wouldn't expect a nutcase with a gun to be shooting in any old woods, but I would expect them on a shooting range. If I got shot in the woods it'd (probably) be the shooter's fault of course, the same as if I got run over whilst walking on the pavement.
Well lots of us ride cheeky trails in places where it might not be safe, and "nutcases" with guns are actually legal and proficient shooters shooting in woods where they have ownership or rights. It is still the shooters responsibility to ensure he does not shoot anyone.
You say the pavement is not where you would expect to get run over, but the road is a shared space, peds and cyclists are allowed to cross, so it should be the operator of the lethal machinery who has responsibility to not hit peds or cyclists.
Sadly, I think the only thing that will reduce accidents is to go back in time a couple of generations to ensure society doesn't turn into the the blubbering selfish mass with no common-sense that it has done.
I agree, road users feel that they have a right to the road and everyone else should stay out of their way.
Machines have guards, roads have crossings, signals. If someone removes the guard and shoves their hands into a bandsaw, is it still the saw operator's fault? In a car, I expect everyone else to be careful, but that doesn't mean I'm not being. It's not one-sided.
There is no guard between the pavement and the road, if you have a lapse and walk into the road then bang you are dead, that's why there are guards on machines, you have the lapse, no issue.
If I'm in the woods or par or in afield and make a wrong step off the path there isn't a rotating machine waiting to mash me up. The machines are there by the choice of the road users, they are choosing to put everyone else at risk.
Mandatory extra testing, retesting etc. will change very little
A lot of the idiots out there are the ones that have most recently passed their test
They take nothing from the test, it's just a hurdle that has to be overcome in order to drive 'properly' any extra testing would just be another hurdle and very little education
I do find it quite incredible that on a supposed cyclist forum any attempt to rebalance the usage of roads from car drivers towards pedestrians and cyclists gets jumped on so hard by some.
I'm not jumping on 'an attempt to rebalance', I welcome it. I'm jumping on the ill-conceived and plain wrong suggestions such as,
Presumed liability and 20 mph urban limits would improve the lot of the cyclist greatly without disproportionate burdens on the car driver
Presumed liability will lead to innocent drivers being penalised. 20mph limits will be ignored unless they're enforced.
Bazzer - and all the pedestrians and all the injured.
Its a huge problem. Making cycling both safer and appear safer has massive benefits in reduction in illhealth from inactivity and reduction pollution.
TandemJeremy - Member
Ta toys / lifer.I do find it quite incredible that on a supposed cyclist forum any attempt to rebalance the usage of roads from car drivers towards pedestrians and cyclists gets jumped on so hard by some.
If this is the reaction from a group I would assume to be pro cycle then its hardly uprising that the general attitude on the roads in the UK is so anti cycle.
Presumed liability and 20 mph urban limits would improve the lot of the cyclist greatly without disproportionate burdens on the car driver
Your original post was not about reducing cycling deaths though, specifically. It was about reducing casualties on the road..........
All accidents should be investigated objectively & thoroughly, regardless of whether cyclists are involved.
If a cyclist is involved, it should be investigated just as thoroughly as any other accident & if the motorist is found to be at fault, then appropriate punishment etc. should be given.
I can see the point that the cyclist is more vulnerable than the motorist, but I can't see why it should be necessary for the motorist to be assumed at fault. If the motorist is at fault, then the subsequent investigation should reveal this whether they are assumed to be at fault or not.
I think one of the main issues specifically relating to motorists and how they deal with cyclists, is that they don't consider their manoeuvres adequately enough, or the consequences of their actions thoroughly enough. The thought process seems to be "....hmmm, approaching cyclist.....that's gonna slow me down....will move out to overtake regardless of what I can or can't see coming my way and overtake......I do not want to slow down and wait for 10 seconds......must get past......blind left hander......doesn't matter......I must get past.......'
The majority of motorists in my opinion think that motorised vehicles have priority on the road. They don't see that a cyclist on the road is a legitimate road user, but a hindrance to their journey. If this never changes, then things won't improve in my opinion.
So cougar its pointless having speed limnits? Presumed liability works well in Europe. At the moment the cyclist is penalised for car drivers mistakes. lets rebalance it a bit
Have you ever cycled in Europe?
stumpy01 - MemberYour original post was not about reducing cycling deaths though, specifically. It was about reducing casualties on the road..........
Indeed - it wandered a bit although the assumed liability and empty streets / shared spaces concept helps pedestrains as well. Empty streets /shared spaces concept reduces car accidents
The majority of motorists in my opinion think that motorised vehicles have priority on the road. They don't see that a cyclist on the road is a legitimate road user, but a hindrance to their journey. If this never changes, then things won't improve in my opinion.
this is why we need the assumed liability. You don't get this attitude in places with it nearly as much
All accidents should be investigated objectively & thoroughly, regardless of whether cyclists are involved.
If a cyclist is involved, it should be investigated just as thoroughly as any other accident & if the motorist is found to be at fault, then appropriate punishment etc. should be given.
Who is going to do this? At the moment its usually a fight between a insurance companies lawyers and a lone cyclist to apportion blame - teh use of assumed liability rebalances this. Minor injury accidents simply do not get investigated thoroughly
Scares the life out of me being a pedestrian in Holland when we were there in the summer. Bikes going in both directions on the cycle lanes on both sides of the roads. THEN the chuffin' mopeds and scooters that go on them too.
Anyway, my point to reduce casualties on the roads is to take all incidents as seriously as the airlines do: Road Accidents Investigation Bureau like the AAIB. A report with serious clout with a fine if someone is negligent and recommendations that have to be adhered to, including updates for all drivers.
Not sustainable economically, but maybe the fine levied on the overturned lorry on the M25 and the disruption it causes ought to be related to the loss of GDP the congestion causes. That'll larn em.
Well lots of us ride cheeky trails in places where it might not be safe,
You're going to have to quantify this. What do you mean by "cheeky trails" and "not safe"? If you're riding on a footpath where cycling is prohibited and get hurt, I've little sympathy.
and "nutcases" with guns are actually legal and proficient shooters shooting in woods where they have ownership or rights. It is still the shooters responsibility to ensure he does not shoot anyone.
Situation 1. You ride along a public bridleway and get shot by a farmer. Who's at fault?
Situation 2. You climb over a gate with a sign saying "warning, shooting in progress, do not enter" and get shot by a farmer. Who's at fault?
I'm not disagreeing that drivers need to take more care, and that in most cases it is the driver's fault. I'm arguing against the idea that it is always the driver's fault unless you can prove otherwise.
You say the pavement is not where you would expect to get run over, but the road is a shared space, peds and cyclists are allowed to cross, so it should be the operator of the lethal machinery who has responsibility to not hit peds or cyclists.
It's a shared space with rules to allow different users to coexist. These rules are oft flaunted by (some) cyclists. If I'm driving through a junction controlled by traffic lights and a cyclist runs a red light at speed straight into the side of me, is it still my fault unless I can prove he ran a red light? No witnesses and he's saying "no I didn't, they were amber."
I would like to see a change in sentencing that allowed for the loss of driving licences for longer periods up to a life ban in cases of clear dangerous/neglectful driving.
If I'm driving through a junction controlled by traffic lights and a cyclist runs a red light at speed straight into the side of me, is it still my fault unless I can prove he ran a red light?
Clearly his fault not yours as he rode "straight into the side of me"
Could you take the presumed liability further then?
A small car is very vulnerable if it has an accident with 50 tonne truck - only going to be one winner
This happened down the road from me on Monday, close to the same spot where my next door neighbours daughter was killed in similar circumstances some years ago
uplink - indeed you can - thats how it works by my understanding
uplink teej, yeah I think its a good idea.
So cougar its pointless having speed limnits?
I didn't say that. It's not pointless to have speed limits, but it's simply naive to think that changing a sign from (30) to (20) is going to magically reduce the number of accidents. It's far more complicated than that.
Presumed liability works well in Europe.
You keep banging this drum. "Europe" is a collection of countries with very different road systems to our own. What works for one doesn't necessarily work for another, and in any case, even if it does work are we happy to prosecute a number of innocent people for the greater good? Hey, why don't we do that for all crimes? "Ok sir, we don't know if you did it or not, so we're going to assume you did." That'd have a massive effect on crime. And it'd probably work in Europe too.
I don't understand why you can think that any assumption of guilt is a good idea. If there's a fight in town and it's not clear who started it, do we just blame the biggest bloke?
At the moment the cyclist is penalised for car drivers mistakes. lets rebalance it a bit
No arguments here.
Have you ever cycled in Europe?
No. Have you ever driven in England?
CBAsed
OK, I'll add that I have cycled in Europe and am a Frenchy and have still never heard of presumed liability there though it may exist but I am sceptical that in itself it drives behaviour.
Regardless, the reason that the attitude to cyclists there is typically better than here is because cycling isn't seen as something wierd to do. That said, given traffic, etc, I've seem plenty of behaviour as bad as anything here - things break down once it's affecting people's journey to work and so on. TJ, I don't really recognise the utopia you paint. Better, particularly in the countryside but not always and noticeably less so in more built up/busier areas which I'm guessing is where a lot (the majority?) of the serious cycling accidents happen in the UK.
the attitude to cyclists there is typically better than here is because cycling isn't seen as something wierd to do.
You know, I've wondered this. I think part of the problem is simply that drivers aren't used to seeing cyclists on the roads. This does seem to be changing, as there appears to be an exponential increase in the number of people getting out and pedalling in the last two years.
don simon - Member
CBAsed
Doesn't this mean beaten and looking for a way out? 
I think there are people on here that clearly believe that toys, hence the never ending threads some like to indulge in... 
It means that I can't be arsed, read into it what you want.
I believe that tests shouldnt be made much harder but yes they need a shake up. The first thing i would do is introduce some sort of shock factor. For example in a safish environment do something to REALLY disturb the driver like chucking a dead child doll in front of the car and see how they react. Ive seen so many drivers drive into a dangerous situation and just lock up or do nothing. The only time i was nearly hit by a car seriously was a girl driving and she literally just accelerated instead of braking whilst screaming !
ban all non ncap 5 vehicles.
come on DS I'm only joshing. We have all said what we need to say, what more can be done. Nice interesting discussion though.
You must log in to post.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
